McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green: A Framework for Analyzing Discriminatory Intent Using Indirect Evidence
In the landmark McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), the Supreme Court described a burden-shifting framework by which employees can prove their employers engaged in unlawful discrimination under Title VII without any “direct” evidence of...
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services is an important case in the development of employee protections from sexual harassment, same-sex discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, and sexual identity discrimination. Specifically, Title VII of the Civil Rights...
Vance v. Ball State, 133 S.Ct. 2434 (2013): Vicarious Liability for Workplace Harassment
Vance v. Ball State, 133 S.Ct. 2434 (2013) addresses the circumstances under which an employer (i.e. a company or government that employs workers) can be held responsible in a lawsuit if one of its employees harasses another. This is generally referred to as...
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013): Different Standards for Proving Causation in Title VII Discrimination and Retaliation Claims
In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013), the Supreme Court clarified the appropriate standards for proving causation in claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In short, the Court held that to prevail...
Encino Motorcars v. Navarro (SCOTUS, April 2, 2018)
Encino Motorcars v. Navarro (SCt. Case No. 16-1362) (Encino II) held that service advisors at car dealerships are exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requiring employers to pay overtime to employees who work more than forty hours in a...
Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis (SCOTUS, May 21, 2018)
Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis (SCt. Case No. 16-285) highlights the tension between a pair of federal laws, The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), concerning whether an employment contract can legally bar employees from engaging in...